4.9. Germane Load

What I used to think

So far the focus of Cognitive Load Theory has been on making thinking as easy for students in the sense that all their limited working memory capacity should be focused entirely on the thing we want them to attend to in order to prevent cognitive overload occurring. In other words, as teachers we should try to do two things:

1. Reduce intrinsic load by helping students acquire the background knowledge necessary so that they may chunk and automate the sub-components of a complex task.
2. Eliminate unhelpful extraneous load via the careful presentation of information and Chapter 6’s worked examples.

However, if we successfully reduce these two types of loads, what exactly do our students’ working memories do with that spare capacity?

Sources of inspiration

• Mccrea, P. (2017) Memorable teaching: leveraging memory to build deep and durable learning in the classroom. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
• Paas, F., Renkl, A. and Sweller, J. (2003) ‘Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments’, Educational Psychologist 38 (1) pp. 1-4.
• Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. and Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998) ‘Cognitive architecture and instructional design’, Educational Psychology Review 10 (3) pp. 251-296.
• Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kester, L. and Paas, F. (2006) ‘Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning’, Applied Cognitive Psychology 20 (3) pp. 343-352.

My takeaway

Mccrea (2017) sums up this issue beautifully:

Our working memory is a high maintenance mechanism. Give it too little to play with and it begins to look for more interesting fodder. Give it too much to juggle and it’ll drop all the balls.

If we have successfully freed up space in students’ working memories, we had better fill it up with something useful, otherwise information not related to the concept at hand may fill the gap and all our efforts will have been in vain.

Van Merriënboer et al (2006) address this problem by introducing the concept of ‘germane load’. Germane load can be viewed as ‘good cognitive load’, in that it directly contributes to learning by aiding the construction of cognitive structures and processes – the schemas from Chapter 1 – that improve knowledge.

The authors found that whilst reducing extraneous load is effective in producing high retention of the material, these techniques alone do not allow students to transfer their knowledge to new situations. They argue that there is a need to do things like vary the conditions of practice and only give limited guidance and feedback in order to induce germane cognitive load and improve transfer. In other words, in order to improve learning – in particular the transfer of knowledge to new contexts – we need to make learning more difficult…but difficult in the right way! This concept is closely related to Bjork’s fascinating idea of ‘desirable difficulties’ that will be discussed in Chapter 12.

There is the danger that including the concept of germane load makes Cognitive Load Theory impossible to falsify. For example, assuming that the overall load is kept constant, a decrease in performance could be attributed to a rise in extraneous load that impairs germane cognitive processes. Conversely, if the performance increases, it could be attributed to a germane load enhancement made possible by a drop in extraneous load. The theory can’t lose!

Building in the concept of germane load might well be making Cognitive Load Theory unnecessarily complicated, but it feels important to include some measure of positive cognitive load. My view is this: at all times, but particularly during early knowledge acquisition, we need to ensure our students’ thinking is as focused on the task at hand as possible, and we can achieve this using all the principles we have discussed in the sections above. But we need to ensure that thinking is not too easy. If students are cruising through lessons on autopilot, then their learning is unlikely to be deep, and learning without the ability to transfer it to new situations is not really learning at all. If we have taken measures to free up capacity in working memory, but that capacity is not subsequently used to think hard about the task or concept in hand, then we have essentially wasted our time.

It is a fine balance. Make thinking too easy, and the necessary changes to long-term memory may not occur for learning to take place. Likewise, make thinking too hard and we risk cognitive overload, where again no learning takes place. Flipping heck, being a teacher is a tough job.

It is also worth reiterating the view of Paas et al (2003) that intrinsic, extraneous and germane load are thought to be additive. Hence, the approach of decreasing extraneous cognitive load while increasing germane cognitive load will only be effective if the total cognitive load remains within the limits of working memory.

What I do now

The first thing to say is that I always, always take steps to reduce extraneous load. Such load fills up students’ fragile working memories in a way that is not conducive to learning, and hence is completely unnecessary at all stages of the learning process. But I am also conscious that students need to be thinking hard to be learning. This is the essence of Cognitive Load Theory – getting students to think hard about the right things in order to facilitate the change in long-term memory necessary for learning to occur.

Sweller et al (1998) explain:

The combination of decreasing extraneous cognitive load and at the same time increasing germane cognitive load involves redirecting attention: Learners’ attention must be withdrawn from processes that are not relevant to learning and directed towards processes that are relevant to learning and, in particular, toward the construction and mindful abstraction of schemas.

Practical ways we can achieve the right balance of germane load will be addressed throughout the remainder of this book.